review: Monster Manual III

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=940

It is really hard to review these books, but I'd like to see something about the span of CR's they have for plug-n-play use. Also, do they have a theme or is there a variety of applications for monster usage?

[Spriggan]

no theme, just a random assorment of monsters.  All your standard type.  Undead, dragons, humanoids ect.  I didn't see any need to list any since they're all of the standard generic templates.

[Fellfrosch]

How would a Monsters of Eberron book be more cash-hungry than a Monster Manual 3? It seems like it would be less cash-hungry, since it would by nature appeal to a more limited audience (Eberron players only rather than all D&D players).

[Spriggan]

becasue it would be like the realms MM which only had about 20 monters.  I expected Wizards to release the MM3 as well as a smaller Eberon one since people would buy both.  Especialy since there are only about 20 monsters with the Eberon setting info in MM3.  Why sell one book at $40 when you can sell 2 for a total of $65?

[Fellfrosch]

Oh, I thought you meant a replacement. Still, it's impressive how vitriolic you can get about something they didn't actually do.

[Eagle Prince]

MM3 has some pretty interesting stuff.  Like the cadaver collector, death giant, protien (not sure on the spelling, but he can split into two people), and new lizardmen, trolls, ogres, golems, etc.  Its also got the yugoloths, which is pretty big if you do planescape stuff.  Its also got the new unique eberron races (warforged, shifter, changling) which are worth checking out if you don't have the Eberron campaign setting.  Its also got some new kinds of warforged even if you do.

Overall I like it.  Also, the monsters are pretty dang powerful for their CR.  War trolls are awesome, I'd love to play one.  I just don't want to run into any half-black dragon war trolls... hordes of them, with the diehard feat.

[Spriggan]

Oh, I thought you meant a replacement. Still, it's impressive how vitriolic you can get about something they didn't actually do.

You know I have no idea what you just said.

Main Entry: vit·ri·ol
Pronunciation: 'vi-trE-&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin vitriolum, alteration of Late Latin vitreolum, neuter of vitreolus glassy, from Latin vitreus vitreous
1 a : a sulfate of any of various metals (as copper, iron, or zinc); especially : a glassy hydrate of such a sulfate b : OIL OF VITRIOL
2 : something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech

And the dictonary didn't help much.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

the key is a the end... virulence of feeling or of speech  

[Spriggan]

so i'm being sulfate?  umm...I didn't think speaking could be a minerial.  The dictonary uses the same word to describe the word "virulence" yet they never say what that is when it comes to non-minerials.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

caustic would be a better synonym. Angrily viscious.

[Spriggan]

ahh.. ok, that makes sence.

No I don't think I'm being angery about it, just cynical.  Expecialy since the last 2 D&D books we reveiwed (serpent kingdoms and frostburn) wern't well thought out and obvuisly rushed.  Kind of the "If we publishing people will buy it, no matter what the quality" syndrome that killed TSR.

[Eagle Prince]

Ah... forgot this was reviewed.  Well maybe I will still try my own review.  In my old post above, I mentioned that some of the monsters are either really tough or just outright too tough for their listed CR.  Now I have used this book a bit, and so I can also add that there are some HUGE numerical problems with this book.  If you don't want to take my word for it, go check out the errata on the WotC website.  I noticed some of these myself, but checking out the errata made me realize just how bad they are.  Its almost an unforgivable mistake, because this is probably the most important part of the whole book, the stats.  All you can do to fix it is print out the errata and chuck it in the cover.  So basically, I say it *could* have had that high of rating, if not for the math mistakes.  With them, I'd say its more like 2-3 clocks.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

sounds like they might have rushed it to the press then.

[Mr_Pleasington]

so i'm being sulfate?  umm...I didn't think speaking could be a minerial.  The dictonary uses the same word to describe the word "virulence" yet they never say what that is when it comes to non-minerials.

To add to the edudimication of this thread,  sulfate is not a mineral.